get_db_table_list

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Get[s] a list' but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, whether it requires specific permissions, how it handles errors, or what the return format looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately sized and structured with clear sections for function and parameters. It uses bullet points efficiently and avoids redundancy. However, the formatting with brackets like '[Function Description]' is slightly verbose, and the content could be more front-loaded with key usage information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics but lacks behavioral details, usage guidelines, and output information. For a simple read operation, this is borderline viable but leaves gaps in completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining the single parameter's semantics. It specifies that 'db_name' is the 'Target database name' and defaults to 'the current database', adding meaningful context beyond the schema's basic type and title. This is sufficient for the one parameter, though more detail on format or constraints could be helpful.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('list of all table names in the specified database'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_db_list (which lists databases) and get_table_schema (which provides schema details), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives. The purpose is unambiguous but could be slightly more specific about differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention siblings like get_db_list for listing databases or get_table_schema for detailed table information, nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage. This leaves the agent without clear direction on tool selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.